Independent School Dist. of Switzer v. Gwinn

• Court: Iowa Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: GAYNOR, J.
• Citation: Independent School Dist. of Switzer v. Gwinn, 178 Iowa 145, 159 N.W. 687 (Iowa 1916)
• Decision Date: 24 October 1916
• Docket Number: 30782
• Parties: INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT OF SWITZER, Appellant, v. W. W. GWINN, et al., Appellees

159 N.W. 687

178 Iowa 145

INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT OF SWITZER, Appellant, v. W. W. GWINN, et al., Appellees

No. 30782

Supreme Court of Iowa, Des Moines

October 24, 1916

Appeal from Warren District Court.--J. H. APPLEGATE, Judge.

ACTION to declare the organization of a consolidated independent school district illegal, and to enjoin its officers from exercising any jurisdiction over certain territory alleged to belong to the plaintiff district and incorporated in the consolidated independent district. The court below dismissed plaintiff's petition.

Affirmed.

W. M Wilson and F. P. Henderson, for appellant.

Berry & Watson, for appellees.

GAYNOR J. EVANS, C. J., LADD AND SALINGER, JJ., concur.

OPINION

GAYNOR, J.

This is an action brought by the Independent School District of Switzer for the purpose of determining the validity of the organization of the Consolidated Independent School District of Hartford, and the rights of the defendants herein to act as directors and officers of said district, and, further, to determine the right of defendants and said school district to exercise authority over the SE 1/4 of Section 33, and the SW 1/4 of Section 34, Township 77, Range 22 west of the 5th P M.

It is claimed that the land above described belongs to and is a part of the plaintiff district; that defendants have no authority or right to control the same. The prayer of plaintiff's petition was that a decree be entered, adjudging that the Consolidated Independent School District of Hartford has never been legally organized, and does not exist in law or fact; that the territory above described be decreed to belong to the plaintiff district for school purposes; that a temporary injunction be issued, restraining said consolidated district and the defendants from levying or collecting taxes for school purposes from said territory, and from exercising any jurisdiction over said territory for school purposes.

The facts are that the plaintiff is an independent school district, and claims to have within its borders, as a school district, 2 1/4 sections of land, including the half section in controversy. This half section was a part of plaintiff's territory until about the month of April, 1912. About this time, the Independent School District of Hartford, Richland Township, Warren County, was organized. When organized, it included within its territory the town of Hartford, considerable surrounding territory, and the land in controversy. This land was taken from the plaintiff district, leaving the plaintiff district, after the organization of the Independent District of Hartford, with but 1 3/4 sections of land. This organization of the Independent School District of Hartford was made under the provisions of Section 2794 of the Code, 1897. In the meantime, there was organized the Independent School District of Swan, in Marion County, Iowa, which included within its boundaries the town of Swan and surrounding territory, and a part of the territory formerly within the Independent School District of Hartford, and, also, the half section now in controversy, leaving plaintiff district then, after the organization of the independent districts of Swan and Hartford, with but 1 3/4 sections of land. The Independent School District of Swan had within its boundaries land in Marion County, and also the half section of land in controversy, and other land situated in Warren County; but said district of Swan was, for school purposes, in Marion County, and was under the jurisdiction of the county superintendent of schools of Marion County for all school purposes. This was the condition of these several districts at the time of the attempted organization of a consolidated independent school district of Hartford. On the 6th day of June, 1914, a petition was filed with the secretary of the Independent School District of Hartford, under the provisions of Section 2794-a of the Supplement to the Code, 1913, which, so far as material to this controversy, is as follows:

"When a petition describing the boundaries of contiguous territory containing not less than sixteen sections within one or more counties is signed by one third of the electors residing on such territory, and approved by the county superintendent, if of one county, and the superintendent of each if of more than one county, and by the state superintendent of public instruction if the county superintendents do not agree, and filed with the board of the school corporation in which the portion of the proposed district having the largest number of voters is situated, requesting the establishment of a consolidated independent district, it shall be the duty of said board, within ten days, to call an election in the proposed consolidated district, for which they shall give the same notices as are required in Section 2746 of the Code, and 2750 of the Supplement to the Code, 1907, at which election all voters residing in the proposed consolidated district shall be entitled to vote by ballot for or against such separate organization."

This petition was signed by more than one third of the electors residing in such territory, and was approved by the county superintendent of schools of Warren County. Upon the filing and approval of said petition, the president of said board called a special meeting of the board for June 8, 1914, on which date the board met, all the members of the board being present except one Halderman. At this meeting an election was called for June 25, 1914. On this date the election was held, and the requisite number of votes was cast in favor of the consolidation of said territory, described in said petition, into a consolidated independent district. It is admitted that all the provisions of the section herein set out were complied with, except as noted hereafter.

It appears that the territory proposed to be consolidated contained the requisite number of sections; that there was included in the requisite number of sections, and as a part of said new district, the SE 1/4 of Section 33 and the SW 1/4 of Section 34, now claimed by the plaintiff. All the territory included in this new Consolidated Independent District of Hartford was in Warren County. The lands in dispute in Sections 33 and 34 were also in Warren County. This disputed territory was a part of the school district of Swan, at the time the petition was filed, at the time it was approved by the county superintendent of Warren County, at the time the board met on June 8th, and up to the 22d day of June, 1914. On this day, the boards of directors of the Independent School District of Switzer and the Independent School District of Swan met, and, by concurrent action, the half section of land in controversy in Sections 33 and 34 was transferred and conveyed from the Swan district to the Switzer district, thus making the territory of the Switzer district contain 2 1/4 sections. The action of the consolidated independent school district in appropriating this half section in 33 and 34 left the plaintiff district Switzer with the same quantity of land it had at the time the petition was filed and acted upon. Or, in other words, the concurrent action of the Swan and Switzer districts, in transferring to the Switzer district the land in controversy, gave to the Switzer district half a section more than it had at the time the petition in controversy was filed and acted upon.

It is claimed that the action of the Swan and Switzer districts, in transferring this half section to the plaintiff district, gave to the Switzer district 2 1/4 sections; that the action of the Consolidated Independent District of Hartford, in taking this half section, reduced the Switzer district, in violation of the statute. The portion of the statute relied upon is found in Section 2794-a, Code Supp., 1913, and reads as follows:

"No school corporation from which territory is taken to form such a consolidated independent corporation shall, after the change, contain less than four government sections."

Upon the facts above disclosed, the district court dismissed plaintiff's petition. From this, plaintiff appeals.

The case is triable de novo here. The facts, however, are not in dispute.

The plaintiff complains of the action of the district court, and says, first, the special meeting of the Independent District of Hartford, held on June 8th, was illegally organized to transact business. This claim is predicated on the thought that not all the members of the board were present at this special meeting. One of the members of the board was not present, to wit, one Halderman, and it is claimed that no notice was served upon him of said meeting. The plaintiff relies upon Section 2757, Code Supp., 1913, which reads:

"Such special meetings may be held as may be determined by the board, or called by the president, or by the secretary upon the written request of a majority of the members of the board, upon notice specifying the time and place, delivered to each member in person, but attendance shall be a waiver of notice."

In Barclay v. School Township, 157 Iowa 181, 138 N.W. 395, this court, construing this section, said:

"The personal delivery of some form of a notice is required. . . . On account of the failure to give proper notice to Anderson (one of the board of directors), the special meeting of the board was not lawfully called, and its action . . . was therefore invalid."

The statute expressly requires that some notice be delivered to each member in person.

J. F Brown, president of the Hartford school board, testified that, when the petition for the consolidated district was filed, he called the members of the board together on June 8th. That was at a special meeting. "I notified them by phone. My recollection is that Mr....